January 8, 2008

Are you watching the results on TV? What channel? I'm hanging out on MSNBC at the moment. I knocked NBC the other day, so I want to make a point of saying I love listening to Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw, who are on Chris Matthews' show right now. I was doing a little CNN before, but it got a little too Lou Dobbsy, so I changed channels. And let's give Fox News equal time. (I'm back in New York City, and I had a hard time finding Fox News, which isn't clustered with the other news channels the way it is in Madison. The New York cable channels are annoyingly jumbled.)

Anyway, the polls close soon. Are you all excited?

ADDED: Hmmm... Mitt Romney was arrested long ago for sledding on an ice block on a golf course. And he was once in a car accident in Paris in which some French cop wrote "Il est mort" on his passport. (Source: Fox News.)

AND: Fox News is saying Obama wins, but it's not a blowout, so Hillary can claim some species of victory. And McCain over Romney, but "too close to call."

MORE: Zombie! Will Hillary fight her way back?

AND: MSNBC calls the Republican contest for McCain, while the Democratic race is too close to call! Ooooo!

MORE: Wow! What a disappointment for Obama-lovers. Can it be that Hillary and her crying turned things around? Did people see how much Bill Clinton wanted to keep going and feel sympathy? Or is it a case of: New Hampshire voters not wanting to be told what to do? But when I read of the huge turnout, I assumed a big Obama victory. I guess her collapse was quite odd, and the news that it wasn't real makes sense.

AND: McCain speaks. The chant is "Mac is back." He can't call himself "The Comeback Kid," because he's not a kid. But it's a great comeback. "I'm going to New Hampshire, and I'm going to tell you the truth.... I talked to the people of New Hampshire. I reasoned with you." Did anyone ever concede like that before? I reasoned with you. Beautiful. [ADDED: Mmmm.... "concede" isn't quite the right word!]

I'm just bored with the change word. I hope the whole primary season doesn't keep using this term without it at least morphing. What about some synonyms:

"I will alter this country beyond recognition!"

"Vote for me: let the transmutation begin!"

I hope at some points words and phrases like changeling, change of life, short-changed, quick-change artist, you are just so much small change, and that we can even have stupid rhetoric like, "He doesn't want change, he wants to nickel and dime us to death!"

I mean, I'm not laughing a lot, to be honest.

I suppose it would have all been lost on the people of Iowa and New Hampshire anyway. Does it get any better than this?

Its hard to imagine that I would ever cheer for Hillary, but I am doing so tonight. Obama presents far more danger to this country. If Hillary wins or even loses by a few points, it will be a great upset considering how much the media claimed she was done.

Press rooting for Huckabee and their "hero" McCain, as well as new God Obama leads them to obscure matters like this Huck idiocy without comment. They want a "horserace" so they only shoot at the frontrunner in hopes of more "comeback kids" for a "tighter horserace".

The Huckster suggested that if he was President, that ME Peace would be gained through forceable "Transfer" of "so-called" Palestinians to Egypt or Saudi Arabia where "there is lots of land".

Am Prospect: Huckabee is apparently so ignorant of the history of Israel and Palestine that he doesn't think to suggest Jordan as a Palestinian homeland, which tends to be the more commonly preferred site for transfer among ultra-Zionist rejectionists.

Not that we needed any more proof that Mike Huckabee's actual knowledge of the Middle East ends with Revelation, but it's a sign of the tragic imbalance in the discussion over the Israel-Palestine conflict in the U.S. that a statement this radical and offensive by a leading candidate for president can pass almost completely without comment by the mainstream media.

Can it be that Hillary and her crying turned things around? Did people see how much Bill Clinton wanted to keep going and feel sympathy? Or is it a case of: New Hampshire voters not wanting to be told what to do?

Some people like Hillary, and are supporting her. I've watched a lot of campaign coverage on C-SPAN, and she definitely has a base of adoring fans. It's possible that votes for Hillary are in fact votes FOR Hillary and not merely a side-effect of some other phenomenon.

Can it be that Hillary and her crying turned things around? Did people see how much Bill Clinton wanted to keep going and feel sympathy? Or is it a case of: New Hampshire voters not wanting to be told what to do?

Maybe they watched the Saturday debate and were unimpressed with new front-runner. As the Washington Post pointed out (and you note in another post here), his answer showed that he wasn't really prepared for the question about Iraq. He should have been. His excessively partisan response was not in keeping with his claim to be a uniter not a divider. Just old fashioned politics as usual. And if it is all really just old-fashioned politics as usual, then why not reconsider that expert team? *LOL* I am enjoying Edwards's continuing implosion, though, particularly after all of the left-leaning pundits on the internet raving about his debate performance.

I'm not watching TV (I seldom do), so I'm just relying on the online results -- but why are people talking like Hillary's already won? The most up-to-date results I've seen so far show her up a mere 2% with over half the results still unreported.

And the two states he invested the most time and money in, including one in his backyard, went for his opponents fairly convincingly.

Worst for him, his path to the nomination was by being the consensus conservative. But Huckabee has sucked off all of the social conservatives, leaving him to battle McCain and Giuliani for the moderates, the defense conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. And both of them are better positioned with those groups than Romney.

He's got the money left, but I just don't see a path to the nomination for him.

The Democratic side is much more interesting, especially with the results as close as they seem to be tonight. A narrow Obama win, or a Clinton win, and she's the favorite again. Had Obama won big, she was in real danger of falling by the wayside. But now there is a real contest, and it will be fun to watch.

Wow, beautiful indeed. McCain's speech was a surprise, and great, great. Holy cow! It moved me tremendously. I can't believe someone else wrote it, but if so, McCain owned it. He was awfully lonely out there when everyone doubted the surge, but now is vindicated as the only serious war leader among the candidates.

You are right, Rev. It all depends where the votes are coming from. She hasn't won, but it definitely is not the 10-point blow-out for Obama that was predicted yesterday. Reminds me of California, where vote totals almost always look like a GOP victory with as many as 60% of the votes reported. Unfortunately for the GOP, almost none of those 60% include Los Angeles County, which invariably votes 60-40% for the Democrat.

He's got the money left, but I just don't see a path to the nomination for him.

He has the most delegates of any of the candidates, and plenty of money on top of that.

So who, exactly, is going to pull ahead of him. McCain? McCain's got big money problems and is the only candidate who entered the Republican race already widely hated by many Republicans. Huckabee? His Bible-thumping good ol' boy schtick isn't going to play in most of the bigger states that have lots of delegates and, again, he's got money problems. That leaves Rudy, who might indeed be a threat IF he does well in the big primaries.

Then there's the possibility that nobody will wind up with a majority of delegates and the convention will be brokered. Giuliani and Huckabee are both too divisive to be compromise candidates, which leaves McCain and -- you guessed it -- Romney. Of the two, Romney will probably have the most delegates and therefore be the logical choice for Presidential pick.

It is interesting that, looking at the larger cities in NH (that have mostly reported), Clinton rolled up some pretty large leads in them, running as much as 15 points ahead of Obama. It is the small counties where Obama is heavily outpacing (and there are a lot of small counties in NH!)

Am I the only woman who is insulted by the commentators on MSNBC who are suggesting that the NH women who voted for Clinton did so out of sympathy? Feeling that she was picked on at the ABCNews debates and because she cried yesterday? People need to give women more credit than that.

What matters is that in the states where he camped his ass for the past year and pumped everything he has, one of which is in his backyard, he got thumped.

He didn't "get thumped". He came away with 12 delegates to Huck's 17, and 3 delegates to McCain's 4. Meanwhile he picked up 8 more delegates in Wyoming; Huck and McCain got 0. You're acting like the percentages matter, and they don't. So McCain beat him by a mile in NH -- so what? He got a whopping 1 extra delegate out of that! What you aren't getting is that Romney doesn't need to win anything in order to be the nominee. So long as no one of his opponents consistently takes first place he can become the nominee simply by having accumulated the most delegates.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Romney's guaranteed to win. But he has the best odds of the people running, at this point. Don't underestimate the fact that he's the one candidate who isn't actively disliked by a sizable minority of Republicans. That counts for a lot, especially if (as seems increasingly likely) nobody gets a majority of delegates.

First they look dead wrong about Hillary-and that balloon floated that She was going to quit?

Now I forgot Michigan went before Florida but Romney should hang on for that -hell his father was a three term governor there. Three terms-that is extremely rare.

South Carolina-Huckster country. Thompson says it's his firewall...I dunno. McCain could have some of the military vote there.

Nevada-that happens before Florida and Giuliani is leading by a large percent. We do have some Mormons though-for some reason McCain doesn't do well and in old polls for California never did well.

Speaking of which Hillary owns California. Old data but her lead was huge and the Clintons have always done well in California-I can't remember the reasoning but once explained to me by some ground gamers there it made sense.

I think it has to do with how economically prosperous relative to the rest of the country California is.

Speaking of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary they both own New York respectively.

So watch who is telling you about the demise of Rudy.

It's Buchanan that little freak and Bill Kristol always a McCain fan.

Look there is no reason or incentive to drop out of the race when the delegates will als be proportionally devied out on the republican side, and no longer a winner take all proposition.

Another thing this Hillary comeback story is going to suck the wind out of the airwaves just as her crying game did.

No matter how you felt about that-bad publicity is better than no publicity.

Yes, I will join the chorus-- of the top-tier candidates, the one LEAST likely to ever get me to cast a vote for him, and most likely to get me to mock insidiously anyone that does, is John Edwards. What a lightweight phony.

MiddleClassGuy-Don't get me wrong-I'm no fan of Hilary. I just think women vote with their brains, not their hearts. The NH women who voted for her presumably did so because they believe she's the best candidate. I don't see any of the commentators suggesting that McCain won tonight because everyone felt bad for him.

First, NH's Republican Primary was full of RINOs and Independents. McCain got 49% in 2000, so his 37% is no surprise. Secondly, conservatives and Republicans outside of the NE, HATE McCain (for good reason). McCain, despite the MSM constant cheerleading, and Chris Matthews' Mancrush, will NOT get nomination.

Let me repeat THEY HATE MCCAINS GUTS. Sorry, to shout but the McCainiacs in DC/NY and on TV never understand this. He will never be nominated. Period.

The media weren't prepared for the drawn-out nature of the Dem N.H. primary. It's telling how early they decided to go on the air. And it's telling with who how less the screen has been crowded--and with whom and without--even and most particularly with regard to MSNBC, which, overall did the best job tonight (partly due to default, based on CNN and Fox weirdnesses, alluded to earlier).

Well, that's my primary gut reaction, nuance aside.

***

Eh, those broadcast people were ALWAYS the earliest go to home. LOLOLOLOLOL. Not for THEM live "replates" into the later wee hours. ('Course, actual print doesn't seem to do that sort of thing, either, anymore, but they did.) Excuse me, please, for a bit of private deja vu and amusement. I would be the first to say that, these days, this is entirely beside the point. Irrelevant. And even a non sequitur.

The thing about the 'net is that you get, to the degree you will personally permit it, to go there simply because you can, so to speak--to indulge, regardless, because--who's to stop you?.

Strange, the first time in 80 years that no incumbent President or Vice President is running, both parties have a half-dozen serious and semi-serious candidates, millions (if not tens of millions) have been poured into this tiny state, genuine retail politics (almost no one else in America has an opportunity to corner a candidate in a diner or coffee meeting like those in New Hampshire) and when all is said and done, it looks like just fewer than half of the voters there bothered to show up at the polls.

"Don't underestimate the fact that he's the one candidate who isn't actively disliked by a sizable minority of Republicans."

That's news to me.

Do you disagree that he isn't actively disliked, or disagree that he's the only one who isn't?

The religious right's problems with Giuliani are well-known, as are McCain's problems with the Republican base. Huckabee appeals to the religious right... and nobody else, since he's basically a Democrat on any subject not covered by Leviticus. But Romney, so far as I know, hasn't especially offended anyone. Oh, sure, there's skepticism about him, especially given his "conversion" from liberal to conservative views on a number of topics, but to the best of my knowledge there is no We Hate Mitt club in the Republican Party.

But come Jan. 15, the name Obama will appear nowhere on Michigan's Democratic primary ballot. A squabble between state and national party officials over the primary date led Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards to withdraw their names from the ballot.

Note that the GOP turnout today was actually less than it was in 2000. Democratic turnout this year was almost double what it was then.

My last choice as a Democrat is Clinton, but I will admit that the Clintons do know how to win.

I also don't think that in the overall context of things you can say that Obama is a loser, he has clearly made it a race between him and her.

Winners: McCain, Clinton (obviously). Huckabee (since nobody expected him to get third in a state with few evangelicals and he beat Giuliani for the spot.)

Losers: Richardson, Edwards, Romney (obviously). Paul ('libertarian' New Hampshire was his best chance to surprise people, and he finished fifth.) Giuliani (his whole strategy has been to beat more socially conservative candidates later on by pushing leadership, the war on terror and experience. He won't be able to play that hand vs. McCain, so Rudy is now reduced to hoping Romney slows down McCain in Michigan.)

I'm not clear why Obama was expected to be a blow-out in N.H., in particular, outside of recent bubbling (and bubblings up). Or why it would be stunning if he didn't upset.

Whatever.

I think the Republican side was more interesting tonight, with the possible exception of the sharp turn of Obama's latest speech (only due to timing and the possible calculations underpinning thereof [and again, to beat a dead horse, the timing). It was more abbreviated, to be sure, and lacking in delicious drawn-out suspense as compared to the Dem side; but still.

And now ... on we go.

(Oh, and definitely count me that I do think it's WAY too early for the nominations to be decided. That they're not is a good thing.)

The DNC also stripped Michigan of all their delegates. So the only contest there is McCain vs. Romney (the rest of the Republicans probably won't compete much there). If McCain wins, it's strike three for Romney and he can call it quits. If Romney wins then McCain's resurgence is short-lived.

Meanwhile, of course Clinton used the word "comeback"! I think that was both she and everyone listening, literally there and generally though, were anticipating and expecting her to say, in the event.

As I said: now, on we go.

***

OT, I'm having problems posting, fyi. Is it just me? This time I'm going to copy what I just wrote, so I don't get caught yet again. (Because every version is going to get less spontaneous and weaker, as I lose interest.) A blogger thing generally, or just here? Or just my log-in?

Revenant, as the public comment by Huckabee about Romney & Mormon theology showed, there is deep suspicion of Mormonism among born-again Christians. It is, and has been for decades, a quiet word-of-mouth campaign. Although there are a couple of feature-length films floating around out there that have been played in more than one or two church halls more than once over the years. The first time I heard mention of this was in the mid-80's, it was definitely a hot topic in rural Oregon in the '90's (Oregon is about 2/3 rural population BTW). It is a huge problem for him because a lot of those people are among the most dedicated of party activists. (True, McCain isn't popular with them either.)

If McCain wins, it's strike three for Romney and he can call it quits.

The only reason for any of the candidates to "call it quits" is if they run out of money and can't raise more. Even then there's no reason to officially drop out of the race. After all, they may still accumulate enough delegates to nab a VP spot, if the leader hasn't got a majority of the delegates.

I'm not having the same problem, Reader. Personally, I think it is too bad that she did use the word "comeback." Let others use it, sure, but try and avoid looking like you are running for Bill Clinton's third term (which she is).

Are the media finally going to put Hillary through the same scrutiny as the other candidates? Are they going to finally investigate, verify, and force her to document her claims of thirty five years of public service, leadership, and experience?

Or are they going to continue to be the cowards that they are and give her the free play, while all the other candidates- on both sides- are put under their microscope?

As far as this campaign goes, the media has abidicated any responsibility, ethics or standards that they claim to have. Fox included.

He demands that others put their records out there. Where is Hillary's record. He does not give any proof that Hillary has done anything except talk. She is good at that. Where is the proof? What has she changed, except Chelsea's diapers?

Hillary Clinton and her people are full of hubris and dishonesty. She should have to prove her record, just like the rest of the candidates.

Oh, gee. I don't know. Let me think.... Could it be because he, uh, lost? Hmmm. Maybe. Spent millions upon millions there and Iowa and still came up short. Of course, he can continue spending millions and millions and outspend everyone. Nevada (8%), like Wyoming (10%) before it, ranks behind only Idaho (27%) and Utah (72%) in its percentage of population identified as Mormon, which should help. South Carlina probably prove a decent indicator of just how willing Christian fundamentalists are to pull a lever for a Mormon.

Verso,I do not hate Hillary. I do not like what she stands for or the fact that we know nothing about her, except what she tells us. Only Liberals hate people. I hate what Liberals do.

I just want her to be subjected to the same scrutiny as others. What has she done, except marry Bill. There is no record of her doing anything earth shaking. She is secretive and dishonest. She is the untouchable affirmative action candidate.

Verso,I will blame the Democrats for raising my taxes, like Bill Clinton did. He raised taxes on every one, not the wealthy. Hillary will do the same. My money is mine. If I want to waste it, let me. Better than the government wasting it.

The massive corporations are allowed to incorporate off shore to avoid taxes.

What "massive corporations" are you referring to, and where exactly is it that they "incorporate off shore"? Name some corporations and name some places offshore where they've incorporated to avoid taxes.

Besides exploding that bit of drivel, some Econ 201 would also be helpful here. Corporations never pay taxes. In fact, it's practically a physical impossibility for them to do so. Taxes become just another cost of doing business and get passed along to the consumer as such in the price of the product sold. What leftards like you don't seem to grasp is that when they go off the rails about needing to raise taxes on the big corporations because they need to pay more is what they are really saying is "I'm not paying enough for the things I buy and I want prices on them raised." Because that's all that ends up happening.

That money that you were paid was "theirs," the people who it was taxed from. How do you feel living off the labor of other people?

I mean, I'm just asking. I personally am glad you were paid, and hope you were paid well. You did important work and you deserved it. That's why we pay taxes. But I don't go around saying stuff like "my money is mine" as if I believe I can live in a civil society and not have to pay to maintain that society.

Hillary did more than peel off the sympathy vote. She beat Obama by about 3 percentage points.

Good for her--it's inspiring that the American people confounded the entire punditocracy. Her speech was less robotic than usual, and Obama actually stated some of his beliefs in his speech, all of which I disagreed with profoundly, most of which will appeal to the young idealists who believe in leftist victimology that he hopes to attract.

Middle Class Guy,I really don't want to give you a reason about Hillary, simply because I don't want to debate that. However, since you asked, and since I don't want to appear to be dodging, I'll give you one: She won't appoint radical right wing extremists to the Supreme Court, like any Republican will.

Meanwhile, I have another question for you: Do you think Hillary will raise more taxes than Obama or Biden would?

Finally, I would like to know how you feel about Republicans allowing corportations to dodge their tax responsibilities by off shoring, but they don't make that option available to the rank and file American citizen? The republicans could have engineered a way to allow you to dodge your taxes the same way corporations do. So how about a little equal opportunity outrage directed against the Republicans for strapping you with taxes?

"That money that you were paid was "theirs," the people who it was taxed from. How do you feel living off the labor of other people?

I mean, I'm just asking. I personally am glad you were paid, and hope you were paid well. You did important work and you deserved it. That's why we pay taxes. But I don't go around saying stuff like "my money is mine" as if I believe I can live in a civil society and not have to pay to maintain that society."

Uh...what? And where did he say he shouldn't pay taxes? At what level of taxes would you abandon your argument? There will always be something government wants to buy and can not because we selfishly think the money we earn is ours to spend as we please.

Well said, Meade. He very well may be a dead man walking and the last man standing. *LOL* As for Romney and Michigan, he needs a convincing win, and he can probably manage it. That said, I imagine the number of people who remember his father as anything but a historical footnote are a rather small percentage of Michigan's current electorate. New Hampshire, OTOH, has heard all about Romney for almost two decades. Couldn't help hearing as the Massachusetts media market overlaps a good part of the state. And all he managed against a washed-up, very aged maverick Republican from Arizona was a second place finish?

My immediate question was--do Verso and Middle Class Guy know each other personally, such that Verso knows that Middle Class spent a lifetime as a government employee, which positions are, by definition, funded with taxes and paid for by taxpayers.

Otherwise, while my intent is not to offend anyone, I frankly do not understand 3/4 of the comment of 11:15.

If you get an answer let me know (provided it is worth reading). Not saying these two, but some of the comments here tonight do seem like they were regurgitations of talking points from this or that campaign HQ.

Uhm, ah, dah...aahh, wah......This isn't the general election, there is no all or nothing electoral college involved. It's about winning the delegates and he's doing that. Slow and steady. But better than his competitors.

Nevada (8%), like Wyoming (10%) before it, ranks behind only Idaho (27%) and Utah (72%) in its percentage of population identified as Mormon, which should help.

He's not running as the Mormon candidate.

South Carlina probably prove a decent indicator of just how willing Christian fundamentalists are to pull a lever for a Mormon.

He just needs to keep getting the delegates. He's not going to quit after South Carolina or Michigan regardless.

Thompson and Guiliani are on the way out. They wont get the money or the delegates. Huckabee is not going to be acceptable to the more realistic Republicans who want to win in the general election and McCain is a hack politician loved by the liberal media and hated by the Republicans who is still living off being unable to get out of the way of a missile in 'Nam.

Why are people underestimating Romney? Is it anti-Mormon bigotry or liberal fear that ultimately he is the best candidate to beat Obama or Hilary?

Verso, I do not believe I should not pay taxes. I do believe that my money is mine. I do believe that there is always a reason to lower or eliminate certain taxes and never a reason to raise taxes. President Clinton lied to us. When he supposedly raised taxes on the rich, my paycheck went down- the sob raised the with holding rate. I had to scramble to make up the sort fall.

I believe that government should not waste the money we send them. I believe we should have a fair and equal tax rate- one rate for all. Fifteen percent would be the maximum for all- wage earners and corporations. From my personal experience in the military and government, we should cut government by at least one third. This is my estimate of government waste.

My money is mine. I worked for it, I earned it. The government did not do anything to earn it. They only finance failure, like the war on poverty. Now, I am going to really piss you off. I believe that it is unconstitutional that the poor do not pay taxes.

Verso,BTW, I paid into my pension, every pay day for almost thirty years. It is a split between me and the city. They do not fully fund the pension in violation of the law, but this is Chicago, the only place as corrupt as Arkansas.

It is a well know fact that the Munchkins refused to pay taxes. When FDR forced them to pay social security they were really pissed. Since little people often die young, they felt they were getting the short end of the stick. So to speak.

Munchkins are an endangered species, I agree, trooper. Do you think we are taxing or over-withheld them out of existence? (There is a difference between the two, as I am sure you will appreciate). I vote for over-withholding as they couldn't stretch far enough to get their refund, which the evil IRS was holding too high off the gorund to reach.

The last mayor of Munchkinland was of course Ray Nagin who was a proud Oompa-Loumia. He told CNN that no matter how many old munckin's lingered on in Munckinland despite the migration to the Valley due to Munckin flight, the Oompa-Loumia's would always make it a "chocolate city."

The last great hope of the little people for a candidate who could be President was Madeline Albright who didn’t realize that her grandparents were Oompa-Loompa’s. She had the support of people of small stature, but lost it when she was photographed without shoes and it was discovered that she was actually a hobbit.

Little people are often rumored to be exceptionally lusty and there rumors of insane Munchkin orgies on the set of the Wizard of Oz. By nature, Munckins were passionate and sexually insatiable people. That is why they have always considered Bill Clinton the first Munckin President.

Years ago, in Chicago, there was a tavern called the Midget Bar. It was set up for little people. Little people from all over came there. They had a few stools and seats for the big people. The place was owned and operated by one of the Munchkins from the Wizard of Oz.

Personally I don't see what the rationale is behind taxing corporations at all.

After all, we tax the salaries and dividends they pay, the profits on sales of their stock, and the benefits they provide to employees. In other words, whenever wealth or benefits get transferred from a corporation to its owners or employees -- we tax it.

What a disappointment for Obama-lovers. Can it be that Hillary and her crying turned things around?

Yes. And independents went to McCain instead of Obama. One thing I find interesting is Hillary can claim all the Steinemesque gender-card playing was successful. Does that mean we'll see more "Women before Blacks, Vote a Woman!" talk?

Also, 3% is not really a comeback. And I doubt that will be the news story. But who knows.

I guess everyone that voted for Hillary! in NH (and IA for that matter) are just mindless idiots and all of YOU on here who know the REAL Hillary are the smart ones.

That's an interesting question. Let me pose a question of my own in return: were all the people who voted for Bush in '04 -- i.e., a majority of voters -- mindless idiots, and were people like you the ones who knew the REAL George Bush?

A second question comes to mind as well: do you realize that Clinton and Obama both won the same number of delegates in New Hampshire, and that Clinton is still losing the race to Obama at this point?

And this is as close as I got with that concept, except I view her here as a combination of Freyja and the Queen of the Night—but a good Queen of the Night: the Eternal Feminine surveying her moonlit realm.

I did it because it's a striking picture, sadly not because it has too much to do with Hillary. All those Earth Mother/Goddess images are powerful and strike the depths of our collective unconscious. My own favorite is the Norse Freyja, with Athena a close second.

Pagan Goddesses share deeply human qualities. But the quality of Hillary's humanity is always strained. Protests and tears of vexation didn't seem convincing, but perhaps they worked well enough in the end. Or was it the triumph of Mrs. Clinton's will, tears be damned?

I think herb just above nailed it, though it might be they prefered to vote for a maverick conservative rather than a squishy liberal.

Guiliani and Thompson lost much bigger than Romney by running behind Huckabee.

NH was always assumed to be friendly to McCain so I can't say that it's a major blow to Romney the way Iowa was. While it was a big win for Huck, it netted him 0 delegates. They won't be selected until the IA Republican state convention, and there's still a couple of levels to go where Huckabee people can be cut out of the process.

Virtually all the Republican candidates are unpalatable to portions of the party in some way (McCain - old/maverick, Guilianai - not social conservative, Huckabee - not fiscal conservative, Thompson - old/no fire, Romney - questionably conservative). In positive terms, it means that each has a way of appealing to independts in the general election. I don't think anyone would be *so* unpalatable as to cause major losses among Republican voters. People will vent about staying home but I doubt that most of that talk is serious.